Thursday, January 29, 2004
Are Voters Sheep?
The Daily Kos (one of the blogs referenced on the left) had a recent post asking if Democrats are dittoheads. The point of the article is that upon seeing positive stories about a candidate in the media, a candidate's poll numbers immediately increase. The most recent and most important example is that all of a sudden after winning Iowa, John Kerry got a huge boost in New Hampshire. Now after winning New Hampshire, he is getting a boost in the states that vote next week.
There are a number of questions packed in here. Of course if the public sees positive coverage of a candidate, we should expect them to support that candidate. This raises questions about the role of the media (which I will discuss in a forthcoming post) but is in and of itself not disturbing.
To me the more interesting question is "Why does winning a primary constitute positive coverage?" Why should a voter in New Hampshire think "well Iowans like Kerry, maybe I should as well"? The most cynical answer is that, using a heuristic like this to choose your candidate is easier than thinking or researching the issue. A more hopeful answer is that by winning Iowa, Kerry convinced New Hampshire voters to take another look at him and they liked what they saw.
Many of the voters made up their minds in the last week before the election. When you focus on politics as much as I do, one often loses sight of the fact that many people haven't given it nearly as much thought as I have. There is nothing wrong with that, it is in fact quite a rational approach to decisionmaking. However it makes the process of choosing a nominee subject to great randomness, and very dependent on the order of the primaries.
Howard Dean clearly peaked too early in the campaign. Had the election been held a month earlier, he would have won. Kerry peaked at precisely the right time. While Kerry supporters would say that this shows his experience at campaigning and his overhaul of his campaign staff in the fall, I would maintain that it is largely luck.
Lets look at another counterfactual. Lets suppose that the first two states to vote were South Carolina and New Mexico, two states voting on Tuesday. We would likely now be discussing Kerry's withdrawal from the race and wondering whether Dean could stop the momentum that either Edwards or Clark was building.
Is this any way to pick a nominee. It almost makes one long for the backroom deals in 19th century conventions. I think the system devised in the 1970s which gives so much weight to Iowa and New Hampshire when combined with a 24 hour media cycle produces a nominee that is unlikely to be the best that the party has to offer. Indeed it tends to produce the least risky nominee. Both parties should look at changing their systems to rotate which states go first, and give more time between primaries and of course we should have public financing of campaigns with free airtime from the networks.
Yes, in part this is bitterness over Kerry's success but I also think there are real problems here that need to be addressed.
There are a number of questions packed in here. Of course if the public sees positive coverage of a candidate, we should expect them to support that candidate. This raises questions about the role of the media (which I will discuss in a forthcoming post) but is in and of itself not disturbing.
To me the more interesting question is "Why does winning a primary constitute positive coverage?" Why should a voter in New Hampshire think "well Iowans like Kerry, maybe I should as well"? The most cynical answer is that, using a heuristic like this to choose your candidate is easier than thinking or researching the issue. A more hopeful answer is that by winning Iowa, Kerry convinced New Hampshire voters to take another look at him and they liked what they saw.
Many of the voters made up their minds in the last week before the election. When you focus on politics as much as I do, one often loses sight of the fact that many people haven't given it nearly as much thought as I have. There is nothing wrong with that, it is in fact quite a rational approach to decisionmaking. However it makes the process of choosing a nominee subject to great randomness, and very dependent on the order of the primaries.
Howard Dean clearly peaked too early in the campaign. Had the election been held a month earlier, he would have won. Kerry peaked at precisely the right time. While Kerry supporters would say that this shows his experience at campaigning and his overhaul of his campaign staff in the fall, I would maintain that it is largely luck.
Lets look at another counterfactual. Lets suppose that the first two states to vote were South Carolina and New Mexico, two states voting on Tuesday. We would likely now be discussing Kerry's withdrawal from the race and wondering whether Dean could stop the momentum that either Edwards or Clark was building.
Is this any way to pick a nominee. It almost makes one long for the backroom deals in 19th century conventions. I think the system devised in the 1970s which gives so much weight to Iowa and New Hampshire when combined with a 24 hour media cycle produces a nominee that is unlikely to be the best that the party has to offer. Indeed it tends to produce the least risky nominee. Both parties should look at changing their systems to rotate which states go first, and give more time between primaries and of course we should have public financing of campaigns with free airtime from the networks.
Yes, in part this is bitterness over Kerry's success but I also think there are real problems here that need to be addressed.
Wednesday, January 28, 2004
New Hampshire Review
Well unfortunately I did a much better job of picking this week's primary. Kerry is now the decided front runner and while he does not have it locked up, it is becoming increasingly difficult to envision scenarios in which he does not get the nomination. This concerns me.
Kerry reminds me of so many failed candidates from the past. Most specifically in the two most recent elections, he reminds me of Al Gore and Bob Dole. Long time Washington insiders, not bad people, not very charismatic and no bold vision brought to the campaign. Bush is eminently beatable this year but the ironic thing about the Democrats quest for an electable candidate is that they may have chosen the candidate with the smallest probablility of beating him. If he goes on to get the nomination, I hope to be proven wrong.
While the Democratic field is still teetering at four viable candidates (as stated last week, Lieberman is done), it is likely to drop to one or two next week. Somebody needs to wins 2-3 states and hope that Kerry does not win the rest. A Kerry sweep or a division of states among the four both make Kerry nearly unbeatable.
The difficulty is that it is in each candidate's advantage to pursue a strategy that will lead at best to a divsion next week. Edwards and Clark will fight in South Carolina and Oklahoma. Dean will turn to Arizona and New Mexico. Missouri, the biggest prize available, will be up for grabs so you can expect Kerry to spend a lot of time there in an attempt to put a stranglehold on the nomination.
The order for the current likelihood of winning the nomination: Kerry, Dean, Edwards, Clark. My preferences remain Dean, Clark, Edwards, Kerry.
Kerry reminds me of so many failed candidates from the past. Most specifically in the two most recent elections, he reminds me of Al Gore and Bob Dole. Long time Washington insiders, not bad people, not very charismatic and no bold vision brought to the campaign. Bush is eminently beatable this year but the ironic thing about the Democrats quest for an electable candidate is that they may have chosen the candidate with the smallest probablility of beating him. If he goes on to get the nomination, I hope to be proven wrong.
While the Democratic field is still teetering at four viable candidates (as stated last week, Lieberman is done), it is likely to drop to one or two next week. Somebody needs to wins 2-3 states and hope that Kerry does not win the rest. A Kerry sweep or a division of states among the four both make Kerry nearly unbeatable.
The difficulty is that it is in each candidate's advantage to pursue a strategy that will lead at best to a divsion next week. Edwards and Clark will fight in South Carolina and Oklahoma. Dean will turn to Arizona and New Mexico. Missouri, the biggest prize available, will be up for grabs so you can expect Kerry to spend a lot of time there in an attempt to put a stranglehold on the nomination.
The order for the current likelihood of winning the nomination: Kerry, Dean, Edwards, Clark. My preferences remain Dean, Clark, Edwards, Kerry.
Sunday, January 25, 2004
New Hampshire Preview
I'll start with what each candidate wants to see happen on Tuesday and then (against my better judgment) make predictions.
Kerry The expectations continue to rise for last week's big winner. This is a double edged sword. The higher the expectations, the better Kerry has to do to avoid the results being a disappointment. The best scenario of course is that Kerry wins by a lot. If he wins by just a little, I think he'd like Dean to do badly. Dean still has the money and organization advantage and Kerry has to be concerned about that. If he comes in second however, he might want to take his chances with Dean winning rather than ceding the anti-Dean banner to Edwards or Clark. His best realistic scenario: Kerry, (at least a 10 point gap), Edwards, Dean, Clark.
Dean Because of the aforementioned money/organization advantage, Dean can still afford a strong second here. Anything lower though will start the vultures circling. A win re-energizes his campaign and restores him to the favorite's position. He would also like the other three candidates to be as close as possible to each other to prevent a clear alternative from emerging for as long as possible. His best case: Dean, Kerry, Clark, Edwards.
Edwards The one candidate who has a free pass this week. As long as he doesn't do horribly (say less than 5%), there is no damage here. He has been banking his hopes on South Carolina for a long time. He'd like to beat Clark who also has hopes in the south and he'd probably be happy to see Dean do well. His best case: Dean, Kerry, Edwards, Lieberman, Clark
Clark For the first time in a while, the buzz is not good. If he finishes third, then next week is do or die for him. If he finishes fourth or lower, then next week may not matter. Just as Edwards would like to see him do badly, he would like to see Edwards falter. His best case, Dean, Kerry, Clark, Lieberman, Edwards.
Lieberman Some time on Tuesday night Joe will hear Jeff Probst's voice in his head saying, "Joe, the tribe has spoken, its time for you to go." Like all Survivor contestants he will talk about how his honesty did him in. Unlike many of the Survivor contestants, he will be right. His best case scenario is a 3rd place finish but I don't think it is sufficiently realistic.
My predictions: You think I would learn. This is a very hard race to figure. The uncertain participation of independents and the horrible weather forecast make it even harder. My best guess is that the top two will be very close and then a dropoff to number three. Kerry, Dean, Edwards, Clark, Lieberman.
Kerry The expectations continue to rise for last week's big winner. This is a double edged sword. The higher the expectations, the better Kerry has to do to avoid the results being a disappointment. The best scenario of course is that Kerry wins by a lot. If he wins by just a little, I think he'd like Dean to do badly. Dean still has the money and organization advantage and Kerry has to be concerned about that. If he comes in second however, he might want to take his chances with Dean winning rather than ceding the anti-Dean banner to Edwards or Clark. His best realistic scenario: Kerry, (at least a 10 point gap), Edwards, Dean, Clark.
Dean Because of the aforementioned money/organization advantage, Dean can still afford a strong second here. Anything lower though will start the vultures circling. A win re-energizes his campaign and restores him to the favorite's position. He would also like the other three candidates to be as close as possible to each other to prevent a clear alternative from emerging for as long as possible. His best case: Dean, Kerry, Clark, Edwards.
Edwards The one candidate who has a free pass this week. As long as he doesn't do horribly (say less than 5%), there is no damage here. He has been banking his hopes on South Carolina for a long time. He'd like to beat Clark who also has hopes in the south and he'd probably be happy to see Dean do well. His best case: Dean, Kerry, Edwards, Lieberman, Clark
Clark For the first time in a while, the buzz is not good. If he finishes third, then next week is do or die for him. If he finishes fourth or lower, then next week may not matter. Just as Edwards would like to see him do badly, he would like to see Edwards falter. His best case, Dean, Kerry, Clark, Lieberman, Edwards.
Lieberman Some time on Tuesday night Joe will hear Jeff Probst's voice in his head saying, "Joe, the tribe has spoken, its time for you to go." Like all Survivor contestants he will talk about how his honesty did him in. Unlike many of the Survivor contestants, he will be right. His best case scenario is a 3rd place finish but I don't think it is sufficiently realistic.
My predictions: You think I would learn. This is a very hard race to figure. The uncertain participation of independents and the horrible weather forecast make it even harder. My best guess is that the top two will be very close and then a dropoff to number three. Kerry, Dean, Edwards, Clark, Lieberman.
Friday, January 23, 2004
Last night's debate and Dean interview
The seven remaining Democrats met last night in New Hampshire for what was an unusually friendly "debate" as the candidates fell over themselves trying to appear positive, since the media has ascribed appearing positive as the key to success in Iowa. As such there was not very much new in the debate and I would expect it to have little impact on the polls. A few minor observations:
-- Clark took the biggest hits. I thought he had the hardest questions and since he is not a lifetime politician, he had trouble with some of them. He should have disavowed Michael Moore calling W. a deserter instead of fumbling around saying he hadn't researched the issue. He did handle one or two other tough questions well but it wouldn't surprise me to see his poll numbers take a hit.
-- Gun control and gay marriage played surprisingly prominent roles in the debate. While the candidates did well on them (in my view), Edwards made a very cogent point in saying that these are issues that the GOP wants to talk about. Democrats need to refocus the debate on the poor, the uninsured, and those who are not getting a quality education. If the debate in the fall focuses on gay marriage Republicans have a leg up because it means we are not talking about issues on which they are weak.
Far more compelling than the debate was the Diane Sawyer interview with Dean and his wife. The media (with some egging on from Kerry) has unfairly portrayed Dean's marriage as a weakness in his campaign. Because of this he unfortunately felt obliged to ask his wife to do a primetime television interview with him. What I saw in that interview was a marriage that should serve as 21st century model. Both members have independent careers yet there is clear love and respect between them. If Dean were to get the nomination, then the marriage would be an interesting Rorsharch test for the country.
Many people criticized Hillary Clinton because she couldn't bake cookies. While I certainly do not sympathize with that criticism, part of it was rooted in a suspicion of Hillary's own ambitions and the peculiar arrangement that is and was the Clinton marriage. Judy Dean will not bake cookies either. But she is not politically ambitious, she just has other priorities. I would hope that the country is ready to accept that as a model of a marriage. If not, then we have made less progress over the past century in gender relations than is commonly believed.
-- Clark took the biggest hits. I thought he had the hardest questions and since he is not a lifetime politician, he had trouble with some of them. He should have disavowed Michael Moore calling W. a deserter instead of fumbling around saying he hadn't researched the issue. He did handle one or two other tough questions well but it wouldn't surprise me to see his poll numbers take a hit.
-- Gun control and gay marriage played surprisingly prominent roles in the debate. While the candidates did well on them (in my view), Edwards made a very cogent point in saying that these are issues that the GOP wants to talk about. Democrats need to refocus the debate on the poor, the uninsured, and those who are not getting a quality education. If the debate in the fall focuses on gay marriage Republicans have a leg up because it means we are not talking about issues on which they are weak.
Far more compelling than the debate was the Diane Sawyer interview with Dean and his wife. The media (with some egging on from Kerry) has unfairly portrayed Dean's marriage as a weakness in his campaign. Because of this he unfortunately felt obliged to ask his wife to do a primetime television interview with him. What I saw in that interview was a marriage that should serve as 21st century model. Both members have independent careers yet there is clear love and respect between them. If Dean were to get the nomination, then the marriage would be an interesting Rorsharch test for the country.
Many people criticized Hillary Clinton because she couldn't bake cookies. While I certainly do not sympathize with that criticism, part of it was rooted in a suspicion of Hillary's own ambitions and the peculiar arrangement that is and was the Clinton marriage. Judy Dean will not bake cookies either. But she is not politically ambitious, she just has other priorities. I would hope that the country is ready to accept that as a model of a marriage. If not, then we have made less progress over the past century in gender relations than is commonly believed.
Thursday, January 22, 2004
Reinventing the Bazaar
I just finished reading "Reinventing the Bazaar" by John McMillan and I definitely recommend it for those interested in the interaction between economics and public policy. I have always maintained that it is impossible to truly understand the impacts of public policy without a reasonably firm grip of microeconomics and this book helps illustrate why.
McMillan, an economics professor at Stanford, does a very nice job tearing down both the most ardent critics of economics and its most ardent supporters. He emphasizes repeatedly that economic systems which have as their basis a free market have been the most successful means of alleviating poverty and promoting growth. He explains that central planning doesn't work because those doing the planning do not have the information necessary to make the "correct" decisions. Only self-interested individuals who know their own capacities, interests, and resources can make the decisions that will lead to a fully functioning economy.
At the same time McMillan successfully argues that in the absence of government, markets cannot work on their own. Markets rely on the government to define property rights, prevent criminal behavior, provide public goods, ensure the free flow of information, and deal with the externalities created by markets. Those who claim they are for the free market, had better support a strong government. If not, according to McMillan (and I agree), they are being woefully inconsistent and advocating a system in which markets are destined to collapse.
The book is strongest in its first few and last few chapters. In between, McMillan rambles a bit but the stories he tells are always interesting.
McMillan, an economics professor at Stanford, does a very nice job tearing down both the most ardent critics of economics and its most ardent supporters. He emphasizes repeatedly that economic systems which have as their basis a free market have been the most successful means of alleviating poverty and promoting growth. He explains that central planning doesn't work because those doing the planning do not have the information necessary to make the "correct" decisions. Only self-interested individuals who know their own capacities, interests, and resources can make the decisions that will lead to a fully functioning economy.
At the same time McMillan successfully argues that in the absence of government, markets cannot work on their own. Markets rely on the government to define property rights, prevent criminal behavior, provide public goods, ensure the free flow of information, and deal with the externalities created by markets. Those who claim they are for the free market, had better support a strong government. If not, according to McMillan (and I agree), they are being woefully inconsistent and advocating a system in which markets are destined to collapse.
The book is strongest in its first few and last few chapters. In between, McMillan rambles a bit but the stories he tells are always interesting.
Wednesday, January 21, 2004
The State of the Union is strong
The State of the Union is always strong. I have a feeling that Terminator 4 would open with John Connor speaking to the survivors of apocalypse and saying, Robots have destroyed the country but the State of the Union is strong. The opposition leader would then point out that robots control all the major cities and have killed billions. He or she would then get called un-American and overly negative.
Bush's State of the Union address last night was one of the more overly political of such addresses in quite a while. The annual address to Congress is by its nature a political speech. It was odd however to see the President, three times use the phrase, "Some of our critics . . ." The President does not usually concern himself with his critics in such an arena. It is an opportunity to look presidential and above your challengers. I thought it was surprising that Bush even mentioned his critics.
It was also an odd choice to have the State of the Union the day after the Iowa caucuses. This was portrayed in the press as a political attempt to steal thunder from the Democrats. Instead I think it both took away from the coverage of the speech (since the papers still have extensive coverage of the surprising results on Monday) and gave John Kerry an excuse to appear on NBC after the speech and criticize it.
As for the substance of the speech, there wasn't too much. There was nothing new on foreign policy other than a reiteration of why the Administration believes it was correct. On domestic policy there were a few initiatives that sounded like they might be good ideas in education and health care and Bush reiterated his immigration initiative (for my views on that see here). These are typical efforts by an Administration to move to the center in an election year and should be taken advantage of by Dems in Congress. There was also red meat for the Republican base by dangling the possibility of supporting a constitutional amendment on marriage.
The most amusing moment of the speech came when Bush gravely intoned that parts of the Patriot Act are about to expire and the audience applauded what was clearly not intended as an applause line. The most bizarre moment was when Bush spent two minutes decrying the evil of steroids in baseball. Now I love sports as much as the next guy (all right, a hell of a lot more than the next guy) but this had no place in the State of the Union. As Jon Stewart said afterwards, I was surprised he didn't give us his position on instant replay in football.
Bush's State of the Union address last night was one of the more overly political of such addresses in quite a while. The annual address to Congress is by its nature a political speech. It was odd however to see the President, three times use the phrase, "Some of our critics . . ." The President does not usually concern himself with his critics in such an arena. It is an opportunity to look presidential and above your challengers. I thought it was surprising that Bush even mentioned his critics.
It was also an odd choice to have the State of the Union the day after the Iowa caucuses. This was portrayed in the press as a political attempt to steal thunder from the Democrats. Instead I think it both took away from the coverage of the speech (since the papers still have extensive coverage of the surprising results on Monday) and gave John Kerry an excuse to appear on NBC after the speech and criticize it.
As for the substance of the speech, there wasn't too much. There was nothing new on foreign policy other than a reiteration of why the Administration believes it was correct. On domestic policy there were a few initiatives that sounded like they might be good ideas in education and health care and Bush reiterated his immigration initiative (for my views on that see here). These are typical efforts by an Administration to move to the center in an election year and should be taken advantage of by Dems in Congress. There was also red meat for the Republican base by dangling the possibility of supporting a constitutional amendment on marriage.
The most amusing moment of the speech came when Bush gravely intoned that parts of the Patriot Act are about to expire and the audience applauded what was clearly not intended as an applause line. The most bizarre moment was when Bush spent two minutes decrying the evil of steroids in baseball. Now I love sports as much as the next guy (all right, a hell of a lot more than the next guy) but this had no place in the State of the Union. As Jon Stewart said afterwards, I was surprised he didn't give us his position on instant replay in football.
Monday, January 19, 2004
Well I didn't see that coming.
Hard to imagine being more wrong about the Iowa caucuses. Well at least I had plenty of company. Kerry's shocking win and Edwards strong showing were huge victories and the fact that they both broke 30% was shocking. My observations.
-- It is now a four person race. Lieberman, Kucinich and Sharpton remain in the race but are non-factors except to the extent they draw from the other candidates. Its been announced that Gephardt is dropping out tomorrow.
--I still do not like Kerry as a candidate. His subtle digs at Edwards (his age) and Dean (his family) were inexcusable. His stiffness combined with the mean streak he showed this week remind me way too much of Al Gore. I think Bush will beat him.
-- I do not buy into media conspiracies and tend to think that despite Fox News, the media still leans to the left. I do think that they just plain don't like Howard Dean. His coverage over the past few weeks has been very negative. Dean does not deal with the negative coverage well so it then feeds upon itself. I think this seriously hurt him in Iowa.
--If Dean holds on in New Hampshire, this could be a long race with three or four candidates going on for a long time. If Kerry wins he becomes the prohibitive favorite. I'll obviously post more on New Hampshire in the week ahead.
My preference among the big 4: Dean, Clark, Edwards, Kerry.
My prediction among the big 4: Dean, Kerry, Clark, Edwards but it is extremely tight among all 4.
-- It is now a four person race. Lieberman, Kucinich and Sharpton remain in the race but are non-factors except to the extent they draw from the other candidates. Its been announced that Gephardt is dropping out tomorrow.
--I still do not like Kerry as a candidate. His subtle digs at Edwards (his age) and Dean (his family) were inexcusable. His stiffness combined with the mean streak he showed this week remind me way too much of Al Gore. I think Bush will beat him.
-- I do not buy into media conspiracies and tend to think that despite Fox News, the media still leans to the left. I do think that they just plain don't like Howard Dean. His coverage over the past few weeks has been very negative. Dean does not deal with the negative coverage well so it then feeds upon itself. I think this seriously hurt him in Iowa.
--If Dean holds on in New Hampshire, this could be a long race with three or four candidates going on for a long time. If Kerry wins he becomes the prohibitive favorite. I'll obviously post more on New Hampshire in the week ahead.
My preference among the big 4: Dean, Clark, Edwards, Kerry.
My prediction among the big 4: Dean, Kerry, Clark, Edwards but it is extremely tight among all 4.
Sunday, January 18, 2004
What I will base my vote on.
I've been ranking my preference for the candidates for several months now without really explaining the basis for it (although it may be obvious from my general posts). I figured the day before Iowa is as good a time as any to explain. There are basically six factors in deciding who I think should be the nominee.
The War in Iraq: In my view the decision to go to war in Iraq was forseeably a bad one. And nothing has happened there to change my mind on this. There are no weapons of mass destruction, we are not safer as a result of the invasion and 500 Americans are dead (not to mention thousands of Iraqi civilians). The Democratic candidate needs to be someone who realized that this was a mistake and that Bush was snookering them into supporting the war. Dean, Clark, Sharpton, and Kucinich meet this criteria.
What we do now in Iraq: As former candidate Carol Moseley Braun said, we went in to their house and messed it up, now we have to clean it up. Withdrawing now would be stupid and would create a haven for terrorists. We should certainly get UN help but in any case, we are in Iraq for the long haul. All of the remaining candidates except Kucinich and Sharpton seem to realize this although Kerry and Edwards voted against the $87 billion which I think was unwise. Dean, Clark, Lieberman and Gephardt get points here.
Taxes: The Bush tax cut rivals the war as the worst thing he has done as President. I'd prefer to see all of it repealed and then start from scratch in tax reform. However Lieberman has some innovative ideas besides repealing the entire tax cut. None of the candidates really fail this test.
Overall economic philosophy: I want to see a Democrat who recognizes that economics works, free trade within limits is a good thing, deficits should be reduced, and that free markets deserve some deference. This is the hardest subject on which to gauge Dean. His rhetoric is not good but his record as governor is very good. I believe his record but I do have concerns. In order in this category I place Lieberman, Dean, Clark (not sure of his philosophy), Kerry, and Edwards.
Do I like and trust the candidate: This is mostly a gut reaction. I like Lieberman and Edwards a lot. I'm on the fence on Clark. The rest strike me as relatively unpleasant or untrustworthy.
Can they beat George W. Bush?: This is the question that has been the focus in the press in recent weeks. Unlike the conventional wisdom, I think Dean can beat Bush because he has energized so many people and gotten them involved. I also think Clark has a chance as well as possibly Lieberman and Edwards.
There are a few other idiosyncratic factors. Lieberman's religiosity bothers me. I like Gephardt's health care plan. But basically the six factors above are the big ones. And within those, the first (the war) and the last (electability) are the two most important. So where does that leave me? Still with Dean as my favorite but with Clark gaining and Edwards and Lieberman as acceptable.
The War in Iraq: In my view the decision to go to war in Iraq was forseeably a bad one. And nothing has happened there to change my mind on this. There are no weapons of mass destruction, we are not safer as a result of the invasion and 500 Americans are dead (not to mention thousands of Iraqi civilians). The Democratic candidate needs to be someone who realized that this was a mistake and that Bush was snookering them into supporting the war. Dean, Clark, Sharpton, and Kucinich meet this criteria.
What we do now in Iraq: As former candidate Carol Moseley Braun said, we went in to their house and messed it up, now we have to clean it up. Withdrawing now would be stupid and would create a haven for terrorists. We should certainly get UN help but in any case, we are in Iraq for the long haul. All of the remaining candidates except Kucinich and Sharpton seem to realize this although Kerry and Edwards voted against the $87 billion which I think was unwise. Dean, Clark, Lieberman and Gephardt get points here.
Taxes: The Bush tax cut rivals the war as the worst thing he has done as President. I'd prefer to see all of it repealed and then start from scratch in tax reform. However Lieberman has some innovative ideas besides repealing the entire tax cut. None of the candidates really fail this test.
Overall economic philosophy: I want to see a Democrat who recognizes that economics works, free trade within limits is a good thing, deficits should be reduced, and that free markets deserve some deference. This is the hardest subject on which to gauge Dean. His rhetoric is not good but his record as governor is very good. I believe his record but I do have concerns. In order in this category I place Lieberman, Dean, Clark (not sure of his philosophy), Kerry, and Edwards.
Do I like and trust the candidate: This is mostly a gut reaction. I like Lieberman and Edwards a lot. I'm on the fence on Clark. The rest strike me as relatively unpleasant or untrustworthy.
Can they beat George W. Bush?: This is the question that has been the focus in the press in recent weeks. Unlike the conventional wisdom, I think Dean can beat Bush because he has energized so many people and gotten them involved. I also think Clark has a chance as well as possibly Lieberman and Edwards.
There are a few other idiosyncratic factors. Lieberman's religiosity bothers me. I like Gephardt's health care plan. But basically the six factors above are the big ones. And within those, the first (the war) and the last (electability) are the two most important. So where does that leave me? Still with Dean as my favorite but with Clark gaining and Edwards and Lieberman as acceptable.
Saturday, January 17, 2004
Iowa preview
Comment feature will be back up by tomorrow (hopefully with all old comments restored)
Onto Iowa. It has become a four person race with Kerry, Dean, Gephardt and Edwards neck and neck. First here is what each of the candidates wants to have happen on Monday (besides winning of course). For those who are interested, another perspective is available here.
Dean: A win is important but not as important as it is to Gephardt. He would be fine with a strong second and it really doesn't matter which of the others beats him. I think what he would like best is a strong showing by either Kerry or Edwards to keep them viable as rivals to Clark for the anti-Dean vote in New Hampshire. I think seeing Gephardt eliminated also helps Dean but its not crucial to him. His ideal top 4:
Dean, Kerry/Edwards, Edwards/Kerry, Gephardt.
Gephardt: Its like the NCAA tournament for Gephardt, win or go home. Beyond that nothing much matters to the veteran from Missouri (the line between sports and politics often blurs for me). I guess he would like Dean to come in second so he can frame the race as him vs. Dean but that is clearly secondary. His ideal top 4 Gephardt, Dean, Kerry, Edwards.
Kerry: A candidate for comeback of the year award (politcs/sports again). He could survive first, second or a close third. I think the most important thing to him is finishing ahead of Edwards in the race to be the electable alternative to Dean. Knocking Gephardt out would be a bonus but not a necessary one. His ideal finish: Kerry, Dean, Gephardt, Edwards.
Edwards: And let's hear it for the rookie from North Carolina. Like Kerry anything better than fourth would be a victory and give him momentum for New Hampshire and the south. Just as Kerry would like to knock him out, he would like to do the same to Kerry so his ideal order is nearly identical to Kerry's. Edwards, Dean, Gephardt, Kerry.
Clark: A very interested observer in Monday's festivities. He wants Dean to do well and everyone else to struggle. The tighter the finish, the more people he has to fight to present himself as the Dean alternative. His ideal: Dean, Gephardt, Kerry, Edwards.
My ideal finish on Monday: Dean, Edwards, Gephardt, Kerry.
My prediction: Dean, Gephardt, Kerry, Edwards.
Onto Iowa. It has become a four person race with Kerry, Dean, Gephardt and Edwards neck and neck. First here is what each of the candidates wants to have happen on Monday (besides winning of course). For those who are interested, another perspective is available here.
Dean: A win is important but not as important as it is to Gephardt. He would be fine with a strong second and it really doesn't matter which of the others beats him. I think what he would like best is a strong showing by either Kerry or Edwards to keep them viable as rivals to Clark for the anti-Dean vote in New Hampshire. I think seeing Gephardt eliminated also helps Dean but its not crucial to him. His ideal top 4:
Dean, Kerry/Edwards, Edwards/Kerry, Gephardt.
Gephardt: Its like the NCAA tournament for Gephardt, win or go home. Beyond that nothing much matters to the veteran from Missouri (the line between sports and politics often blurs for me). I guess he would like Dean to come in second so he can frame the race as him vs. Dean but that is clearly secondary. His ideal top 4 Gephardt, Dean, Kerry, Edwards.
Kerry: A candidate for comeback of the year award (politcs/sports again). He could survive first, second or a close third. I think the most important thing to him is finishing ahead of Edwards in the race to be the electable alternative to Dean. Knocking Gephardt out would be a bonus but not a necessary one. His ideal finish: Kerry, Dean, Gephardt, Edwards.
Edwards: And let's hear it for the rookie from North Carolina. Like Kerry anything better than fourth would be a victory and give him momentum for New Hampshire and the south. Just as Kerry would like to knock him out, he would like to do the same to Kerry so his ideal order is nearly identical to Kerry's. Edwards, Dean, Gephardt, Kerry.
Clark: A very interested observer in Monday's festivities. He wants Dean to do well and everyone else to struggle. The tighter the finish, the more people he has to fight to present himself as the Dean alternative. His ideal: Dean, Gephardt, Kerry, Edwards.
My ideal finish on Monday: Dean, Edwards, Gephardt, Kerry.
My prediction: Dean, Gephardt, Kerry, Edwards.
Tuesday, January 13, 2004
Bush Immigration Proposal
Last week President Bush unveiled a sweeping change in immigration policy that would give some legal status to the millions of people in the country illegally. The reaction was strongly opposed on both extreme sides of the ideological divide, usually a good sign that the plan is a good idea. I think the President should be praised for opening a debate on a controversial and important issue, no matter what his motives for doing so were.
Those on the right have criticized the President's plan because it rewards the breaking of American laws. True, people who are in this country will be given some type of amnesty (although Bush is loath to call it that). Oddly enough none of the anti-immigration advocates are complaining about how the plan will reward those businesses that have illegally hired illegal immigrants. The rewarding illegal behavior complaint ignores the reality of the conditions faced by both the immigrants and the businesses. There are jobs out there and people willing to undergo great hardships to get those jobs. They won't stop doing so just because there is a semipermeable border in their way. So we should find a way that those who wish to come here can legally take those jobs and in doing so, ensure that the conditions under which they are working meet our legal standards.
On the left, the criticism has been less substantive. Labor and liberals have argued that the President is merely playing politics. Well, duh. These criticisms point to the fact that there isn't much substantive basis on which to criticize the proposal. In our political system, in an election year, even a conservative president such as W. has to come to the center with some of his proposals. This is one of those examples. So the left should take advantage of this "playing politics" modify the proposal in Congress and give the President and millions of immigrants a victory.
Now we don't know all of the specifics of this proposal yet so caution is indeed warranted. One likely aspect of it that will require modification in Congress is the requirement that illegals who take advantage of this proposal will be sent home if they lose their job. This essentially makes the immigrant a slave of the business. Report labor violations? Not if it means you could get deported. The proposal should be modified to guarantee those taking advantage of it, the benefits of the program for 3 years regardless of employment status. There may be other changes necessary but that doesn't mean that the first step taken by the President isn't a good one.
This issue is one I have had long held feelings on. I am pretty much in favor of anything that increases immigration. One of my core beliefs is that it is the diverstiy brought on by generations of immigrants that has made this the greatest country in the world. Efforts to keep out immigrants are shortsighted and damage our ability to continue to grow as a nation. Often they are grounded in a desire to keep out those who do not look, sound, or behave like us. One hundred years ago these were Irish, then Jewish, Asian, and now Hispanic. Each group has made us stronger and any way to continue that strengthening process is worth embracing.
Those on the right have criticized the President's plan because it rewards the breaking of American laws. True, people who are in this country will be given some type of amnesty (although Bush is loath to call it that). Oddly enough none of the anti-immigration advocates are complaining about how the plan will reward those businesses that have illegally hired illegal immigrants. The rewarding illegal behavior complaint ignores the reality of the conditions faced by both the immigrants and the businesses. There are jobs out there and people willing to undergo great hardships to get those jobs. They won't stop doing so just because there is a semipermeable border in their way. So we should find a way that those who wish to come here can legally take those jobs and in doing so, ensure that the conditions under which they are working meet our legal standards.
On the left, the criticism has been less substantive. Labor and liberals have argued that the President is merely playing politics. Well, duh. These criticisms point to the fact that there isn't much substantive basis on which to criticize the proposal. In our political system, in an election year, even a conservative president such as W. has to come to the center with some of his proposals. This is one of those examples. So the left should take advantage of this "playing politics" modify the proposal in Congress and give the President and millions of immigrants a victory.
Now we don't know all of the specifics of this proposal yet so caution is indeed warranted. One likely aspect of it that will require modification in Congress is the requirement that illegals who take advantage of this proposal will be sent home if they lose their job. This essentially makes the immigrant a slave of the business. Report labor violations? Not if it means you could get deported. The proposal should be modified to guarantee those taking advantage of it, the benefits of the program for 3 years regardless of employment status. There may be other changes necessary but that doesn't mean that the first step taken by the President isn't a good one.
This issue is one I have had long held feelings on. I am pretty much in favor of anything that increases immigration. One of my core beliefs is that it is the diverstiy brought on by generations of immigrants that has made this the greatest country in the world. Efforts to keep out immigrants are shortsighted and damage our ability to continue to grow as a nation. Often they are grounded in a desire to keep out those who do not look, sound, or behave like us. One hundred years ago these were Irish, then Jewish, Asian, and now Hispanic. Each group has made us stronger and any way to continue that strengthening process is worth embracing.
Commenting capacity temporarily down.
Hopefully will be back up soon.
Monday, January 12, 2004
O'Neill on Bush
After a week of sports entries, this week should be filled with politics (with a few days off later this week as I head to DC for work).
I'll lead off the week with former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill's comments on his relationship with his boss during his two year tenure. As my wife noted, the interview on 60 Minutes was actually quite badly done but if you want the larger story but don't want to read the full book I recommend this article from Time Magazine. O'Neill basically reveals our leader to be intellectually incurious, reveals Cheney to be the Administration decisionmaker, and the Iraq war to have been planned long before 9-11.
These "revelations" need to become a centerpiece of Democratic rhetoric. The planning for a war on Iraq is the most egregious offense and the American people need to understand that the war had nothing to do with terrorism, and was sold to them on entirely false grounds. I would urge Democrats to start demanding Congressional hearings on this and keeping the issue in the media spotlight. As I've said before, there may have been a good case for going to war in Iraq, but this Administration did not make it, and American soldiers are dying daily on what was a false premise. O'Neill's words are the first tangible evidence on this.
O'Neill is far from the ideal spokesman for this argument. His propensity for the gaffe makes Dean look like a downright cautious public speaker. He was indeed fired from the Administration leading to charges that his claims are the bitter rants of a disgruntled employee. That said, his bluntness and his penchant for saying stupid things all give the impression that he is not lying. I think he would make an excellent witness at a hearing. Now if we could get Christie Todd Whitman to talk, then we would really have something.
Of course to those people who pay attention to these issues, there were few surprises in the O'Neill remarks. Many liberals have said that Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz planned to invade Iraq as soon as they came into office. Bush has always been perceived by the liberal elite as an anti-intellectual, indeed this is part of his appeal. And of course every political satirist and humorist has used the Cheney as puppetmaster motif. What is news here, and what the Dems need to emphasize, is that a Republican (and O'Neill once called Democrats socialists so there are no doubts about his ideology) and a former insider is making these claims.
What this highlights to me is what a second Bush Administration would be like. Each of the last three presidents who served two terms (Reagan, Nixon, and Clinton) were plagued with scandals in their second term. There is no reason to think a second Bush term would be any different. Between the Plame affair, the lies in last year's State of the Union, the early planning for an Iraq war, and the overall secretive mentality of the White House, there is little doubt in my mind that a second Bush term would be one rife with serious scandals. Democrats would have little to lose by finally going on the attack and it is hard to believe they wouldn't find something. These scandals would distract both the Administration and the Congress from the business of governing the country which, in this particularly dangerous time, could have very serious consequences.
I'll lead off the week with former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill's comments on his relationship with his boss during his two year tenure. As my wife noted, the interview on 60 Minutes was actually quite badly done but if you want the larger story but don't want to read the full book I recommend this article from Time Magazine. O'Neill basically reveals our leader to be intellectually incurious, reveals Cheney to be the Administration decisionmaker, and the Iraq war to have been planned long before 9-11.
These "revelations" need to become a centerpiece of Democratic rhetoric. The planning for a war on Iraq is the most egregious offense and the American people need to understand that the war had nothing to do with terrorism, and was sold to them on entirely false grounds. I would urge Democrats to start demanding Congressional hearings on this and keeping the issue in the media spotlight. As I've said before, there may have been a good case for going to war in Iraq, but this Administration did not make it, and American soldiers are dying daily on what was a false premise. O'Neill's words are the first tangible evidence on this.
O'Neill is far from the ideal spokesman for this argument. His propensity for the gaffe makes Dean look like a downright cautious public speaker. He was indeed fired from the Administration leading to charges that his claims are the bitter rants of a disgruntled employee. That said, his bluntness and his penchant for saying stupid things all give the impression that he is not lying. I think he would make an excellent witness at a hearing. Now if we could get Christie Todd Whitman to talk, then we would really have something.
Of course to those people who pay attention to these issues, there were few surprises in the O'Neill remarks. Many liberals have said that Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz planned to invade Iraq as soon as they came into office. Bush has always been perceived by the liberal elite as an anti-intellectual, indeed this is part of his appeal. And of course every political satirist and humorist has used the Cheney as puppetmaster motif. What is news here, and what the Dems need to emphasize, is that a Republican (and O'Neill once called Democrats socialists so there are no doubts about his ideology) and a former insider is making these claims.
What this highlights to me is what a second Bush Administration would be like. Each of the last three presidents who served two terms (Reagan, Nixon, and Clinton) were plagued with scandals in their second term. There is no reason to think a second Bush term would be any different. Between the Plame affair, the lies in last year's State of the Union, the early planning for an Iraq war, and the overall secretive mentality of the White House, there is little doubt in my mind that a second Bush term would be one rife with serious scandals. Democrats would have little to lose by finally going on the attack and it is hard to believe they wouldn't find something. These scandals would distract both the Administration and the Congress from the business of governing the country which, in this particularly dangerous time, could have very serious consequences.
Friday, January 09, 2004
Pete Rose. Pete Fell. Pete is trying to rise again.
The newspapers and the blogosphere is filled with opinions on Mr. Rose this week. There is a nice dialogue on Larry Mahnken's site from earlier this week and Ian O'Connor had a good column in the USA Today. In my view, very little has changed over the past two weeks and I continue to believe that Pete Rose should be in the Hall of Fame and should never be allowed near professional baseball in any official capacity.
These are indeed two separate questions. Lets deal with the Hall of Fame first. The Hall should be about what players do on the baseball diamond. If it is about the person's worth as a human being, than people who know a lot about baseball are making judgements about morality and ethics, subjects on which they are not necessarily experts. I realize and agree that gambling "compromises the integrity of the game." But how about Cap Anson fighting to bar black players and implement the "gentlemen's agreement" that left the game segregated for 60 years? It seems that barring 10% of the population has some effect on the integrity of the game. Yet no one questions Anson's presence in the Hall.
Similarly several of the owners and executives who helped enforce the segregation of baseball are in the Hall such as Charlie Comiskey, George Weiss, and Clark Griffith. It is hard for me to believe that they hurt the game any less than Pete Rose. But I admit that this is a judgement grounded in values. The Hall of Fame can't be a mirror for our values. It has to reflect baseball only. OJ Simpson belongs in the football Hall of Fame and Pete Rose belongs in the baseball Hall. (so does Shoeless Joe Jackson by the way).
Rose's punishment should be his permanent banishment from baseball. Gambling is the capital crime in baseball and as such merits the harshest penalty. Reinstating Rose should hinge on two questions. Has he been sufficiently punished for his misdeeds, and if reinstated, would he be likely to commit the same crime (note: this is different than criminal cases where we are depriving someone of their liberty and hence only the first question can be considered).
Rose doesn't pass either of these tests. The punishment for betting on you own team is clearly stated and Rose knew it when he did it. Furthermore there are no "mitigating factors" here. Rose is not remorseful, doesn't appear to understand that what he did is wrong, and lied for 14 years about his actions, only telling the truth in a best-selling and highly profitable book. For these reasons, we also have no reason to think that Rose wouldn't bet again.
So put Rose in the Hall, get him out of the newspapers and keep him away from baseball for the rest of his life.
These are indeed two separate questions. Lets deal with the Hall of Fame first. The Hall should be about what players do on the baseball diamond. If it is about the person's worth as a human being, than people who know a lot about baseball are making judgements about morality and ethics, subjects on which they are not necessarily experts. I realize and agree that gambling "compromises the integrity of the game." But how about Cap Anson fighting to bar black players and implement the "gentlemen's agreement" that left the game segregated for 60 years? It seems that barring 10% of the population has some effect on the integrity of the game. Yet no one questions Anson's presence in the Hall.
Similarly several of the owners and executives who helped enforce the segregation of baseball are in the Hall such as Charlie Comiskey, George Weiss, and Clark Griffith. It is hard for me to believe that they hurt the game any less than Pete Rose. But I admit that this is a judgement grounded in values. The Hall of Fame can't be a mirror for our values. It has to reflect baseball only. OJ Simpson belongs in the football Hall of Fame and Pete Rose belongs in the baseball Hall. (so does Shoeless Joe Jackson by the way).
Rose's punishment should be his permanent banishment from baseball. Gambling is the capital crime in baseball and as such merits the harshest penalty. Reinstating Rose should hinge on two questions. Has he been sufficiently punished for his misdeeds, and if reinstated, would he be likely to commit the same crime (note: this is different than criminal cases where we are depriving someone of their liberty and hence only the first question can be considered).
Rose doesn't pass either of these tests. The punishment for betting on you own team is clearly stated and Rose knew it when he did it. Furthermore there are no "mitigating factors" here. Rose is not remorseful, doesn't appear to understand that what he did is wrong, and lied for 14 years about his actions, only telling the truth in a best-selling and highly profitable book. For these reasons, we also have no reason to think that Rose wouldn't bet again.
So put Rose in the Hall, get him out of the newspapers and keep him away from baseball for the rest of his life.
Wednesday, January 07, 2004
Marbury to the Knicks
Basketball rarely provides the same opportunities as baseball for interesting writing and analysis. This week is an exception as my beloved Knicks made a blockbuster deal picking up Stephon Marbury in exchange for half of their current team.
I am generally positive on the deal with a few misgivings. The big positive is that Isiah Thomas has managed to rid the Knicks of two horrible contracts, Clarence Weatherspoon (in an earlier deal) and Howard Eisley (in this one). It is one thing to be bogged down by contracts for Marbury, who is a superstar and Anfernee Hardaway who is at least a solid player. It is another one entirely to be bogged down with contracts for bench warmers.
Also, Marbury brings star power and excitement to the Knicks. He gives them a chance against any team in the east and while I wouldn't make them the favorites this year to make the finals this could move them into the second round of the playoffs for the first time in four years. Marbury is the second best point guard in basketball (possibly third if we count LeBron) and a proven scoring and passing threat.
There are two downsides. First of all, Marbury has not gotten along with teammates in each of his previous three stops in the NBA. He particularly clashed with Keith Van Horn who seemed to be coming into his own over the past few weeks for the Knicks. This could keep the Knicks from being as good on the court as they look on paper. Second, the Knicks gave up two promising foreign players and two first round draft picks. That is a lot of future to be dealing away. Of course, it is a future that was years away from being achieved and was uncertain at best (particularly given the Knicks inability to make good draft choices.)
On the whole, a thumbs up.
(no blog on yesterday's radio debate: it was much the same as Sunday's)
I am generally positive on the deal with a few misgivings. The big positive is that Isiah Thomas has managed to rid the Knicks of two horrible contracts, Clarence Weatherspoon (in an earlier deal) and Howard Eisley (in this one). It is one thing to be bogged down by contracts for Marbury, who is a superstar and Anfernee Hardaway who is at least a solid player. It is another one entirely to be bogged down with contracts for bench warmers.
Also, Marbury brings star power and excitement to the Knicks. He gives them a chance against any team in the east and while I wouldn't make them the favorites this year to make the finals this could move them into the second round of the playoffs for the first time in four years. Marbury is the second best point guard in basketball (possibly third if we count LeBron) and a proven scoring and passing threat.
There are two downsides. First of all, Marbury has not gotten along with teammates in each of his previous three stops in the NBA. He particularly clashed with Keith Van Horn who seemed to be coming into his own over the past few weeks for the Knicks. This could keep the Knicks from being as good on the court as they look on paper. Second, the Knicks gave up two promising foreign players and two first round draft picks. That is a lot of future to be dealing away. Of course, it is a future that was years away from being achieved and was uncertain at best (particularly given the Knicks inability to make good draft choices.)
On the whole, a thumbs up.
(no blog on yesterday's radio debate: it was much the same as Sunday's)
Tuesday, January 06, 2004
Sunday's Debate in Iowa
I listened to the Sunday debate in Iowa on the radio since we were driving to Boston. I actually didn't think there was much of a difference from watching on tv, and to show what a political geek I am, I recognized all of the candidate's voices. My observations as we are less than two weeks from the caucuses.
-- The other candidates did Dean a huge favor by focusing on him so much. All the less informed viewer was left with was that the candidates all see Dean as the favorite and it was nearly impossible to distinguish his attackers (Lieberman, Kerry, Kucinich, and Gephardt).
-- For that reason Clark may have helped himself by staying away. Let everyone else attack Dean and look petty and then when Dean wipes the floor with them in New Hampshire and Iowa, emerge as the only credible non-Dean candidate.
-- Edwards stayed positive and didn't attack Dean which helped differentiate him but probably helped him more in his quest for the vice presidency than the presidency.
-- Dean handled the attacks better than at any previous debate. He is settling into the role of favorite nicely which is bad news for the other candidates (of course if he was smirking, I missed it on the radio).
My current preferences: Dean, Clark, Lieberman, Edwards, Moseley Braun, Gephardt, Kerry, the other two.
Likelihood of winning: Dean, Clark, Gephardt, Edwards, Kerry, Lieberman, the other three.
-- The other candidates did Dean a huge favor by focusing on him so much. All the less informed viewer was left with was that the candidates all see Dean as the favorite and it was nearly impossible to distinguish his attackers (Lieberman, Kerry, Kucinich, and Gephardt).
-- For that reason Clark may have helped himself by staying away. Let everyone else attack Dean and look petty and then when Dean wipes the floor with them in New Hampshire and Iowa, emerge as the only credible non-Dean candidate.
-- Edwards stayed positive and didn't attack Dean which helped differentiate him but probably helped him more in his quest for the vice presidency than the presidency.
-- Dean handled the attacks better than at any previous debate. He is settling into the role of favorite nicely which is bad news for the other candidates (of course if he was smirking, I missed it on the radio).
My current preferences: Dean, Clark, Lieberman, Edwards, Moseley Braun, Gephardt, Kerry, the other two.
Likelihood of winning: Dean, Clark, Gephardt, Edwards, Kerry, Lieberman, the other three.
Sunday, January 04, 2004
Baseball Hall of Fame
The Baseball Hall of Fame announces its 2004 selections on Tuesday. Below are the list of players that I think should make it (these are not predictions, but rather the players I think should be in, my prediction is that only Molitor and Eckersley gain election).
Although I generally believe that more players are in the Hall of Fame than deserve to be (mostly because of the recently reformed Veterans Committee), this year my list of deserving entrees is quite long. There are two reasons for this. I believe that relief pitchers are underrepresented in the Hall of Fame and my list includes 3 relievers. Second, we are judging 1980s hitters by 2000 standards not recgonizing that these players did not have the benefit of the offensive boon that occurred in the early 1990s.
I have 3 factors I look at. 1) Bill James' win shares, particularly for hitters. 2) the player's traditional statistics (batting average, HR, wins, saves). 3) my memories of the player. Without further ado:
Paul Molitor
Molitor, a first timer on the ballot is the one no-brainer this time around. The numbers are pretty overwhelming, 3319 hits, over 500 steals, 411 win shares (more than 70 more than anyone else on the ballot). In addition, he was one of the best postseason players ever and sustained his excellence for over 20 years.
Dennis Eckersley
Another first timer. He redefined (with some help from manager Tony LaRussa) the closer position in the late 1980s. From 1988 to 1992 he was better than any reliever in history (in 1990 he had more saves than baserunners allowed). Furthermore, all of this came after a decent ten years as a starting pitcher including a no-hitter and a 20 win season. An easy choice.
Ryne Sandberg
I didn't support Sandberg last year because I didn't think he crossed the barrier for getting elected in his first year of eligibility. However his case for getting into the Hall of Fame is strong. Arguably the best second baseman in baseball for a decade, Ryno won an MVP award and had an impressive combination of speed and power. A total of 346 win shares is enough to get him in.
Bert Blyleven
One of the most serious oversights of the committee over the past several years is the lack of respect for Blyleven. He pitched for a series of lousy teams yet managed to win 287 games in a 23 year career. A 3.31 ERA and fourth place in the all time strikeout list further his resume. I put him barely ahead of Tommy John who won nearly as many games with better teams.
Lee Smith and Rich Gossage
These two relief pitchers should open the door for a position that didn't really exist before 1970. Currently Rollie Fingers and Hoyt Wilhelm are in the hall and Eckersley should join them. So should Smith and Gossage. Gossage is recognized by stats geeks as the second best reliever after Wilhelm. He had 310 saves and was dominant as a closer. Smith holds the all time record for saves, a phenomenal and underappreciated 478 saves. At his peak he was not the pitcher Gossage or Eckersley was (or Bruce Sutter who I leave out with some misgivings) but he should get in for his long hiqh quality career.
Borderline candidates.
I feel such angst about recommending six candidates that I cut the list off here. In addition to Sutter and John (mentioned above) there are four hitters who are very close to being deserving. They are Keith Hernandez, Alan Trammell, Don Mattingly, and Andre Dawson. I will look closely at them next year (when perhaps the Baseball Writers will finally recognize my brilliance and give me a ballot).
As for Pete Rose, I have a feeling he will get an entry all his own this week after the book he has "written" comes out.
Although I generally believe that more players are in the Hall of Fame than deserve to be (mostly because of the recently reformed Veterans Committee), this year my list of deserving entrees is quite long. There are two reasons for this. I believe that relief pitchers are underrepresented in the Hall of Fame and my list includes 3 relievers. Second, we are judging 1980s hitters by 2000 standards not recgonizing that these players did not have the benefit of the offensive boon that occurred in the early 1990s.
I have 3 factors I look at. 1) Bill James' win shares, particularly for hitters. 2) the player's traditional statistics (batting average, HR, wins, saves). 3) my memories of the player. Without further ado:
Paul Molitor
Molitor, a first timer on the ballot is the one no-brainer this time around. The numbers are pretty overwhelming, 3319 hits, over 500 steals, 411 win shares (more than 70 more than anyone else on the ballot). In addition, he was one of the best postseason players ever and sustained his excellence for over 20 years.
Dennis Eckersley
Another first timer. He redefined (with some help from manager Tony LaRussa) the closer position in the late 1980s. From 1988 to 1992 he was better than any reliever in history (in 1990 he had more saves than baserunners allowed). Furthermore, all of this came after a decent ten years as a starting pitcher including a no-hitter and a 20 win season. An easy choice.
Ryne Sandberg
I didn't support Sandberg last year because I didn't think he crossed the barrier for getting elected in his first year of eligibility. However his case for getting into the Hall of Fame is strong. Arguably the best second baseman in baseball for a decade, Ryno won an MVP award and had an impressive combination of speed and power. A total of 346 win shares is enough to get him in.
Bert Blyleven
One of the most serious oversights of the committee over the past several years is the lack of respect for Blyleven. He pitched for a series of lousy teams yet managed to win 287 games in a 23 year career. A 3.31 ERA and fourth place in the all time strikeout list further his resume. I put him barely ahead of Tommy John who won nearly as many games with better teams.
Lee Smith and Rich Gossage
These two relief pitchers should open the door for a position that didn't really exist before 1970. Currently Rollie Fingers and Hoyt Wilhelm are in the hall and Eckersley should join them. So should Smith and Gossage. Gossage is recognized by stats geeks as the second best reliever after Wilhelm. He had 310 saves and was dominant as a closer. Smith holds the all time record for saves, a phenomenal and underappreciated 478 saves. At his peak he was not the pitcher Gossage or Eckersley was (or Bruce Sutter who I leave out with some misgivings) but he should get in for his long hiqh quality career.
Borderline candidates.
I feel such angst about recommending six candidates that I cut the list off here. In addition to Sutter and John (mentioned above) there are four hitters who are very close to being deserving. They are Keith Hernandez, Alan Trammell, Don Mattingly, and Andre Dawson. I will look closely at them next year (when perhaps the Baseball Writers will finally recognize my brilliance and give me a ballot).
As for Pete Rose, I have a feeling he will get an entry all his own this week after the book he has "written" comes out.
Friday, January 02, 2004
Regulatory Peer Review
It's an issue that has received scant media attention, (articles in the Baltimore Sun and Boston Globe) but could have as much of an impact as many of the more publicized administration initiatives on public health or the environment. In mid-September, the Office of Management and Budget put out proposed guidelines requiring agencies to peer review their analyses supporting regulatory efforts. The guidelines also specified numerous parameters that agencies would have to meet when conducting peer review.
Sounds obscure and not terribly consequential, huh? The opposite is true. In requiring peer review, the administration is adding a procedural step to the regualtory process that would add between 3 months and several years to the development of each regulation. This means that protections for the environment and public health would be significantly delayed by this action.
It is possible that such a delay would be worthwhile if there were a bunch of regulations that were supported by faulty analysis that peer review could correct. Unfortunately there are two problems with making such an assertion. First, the administration provided no evidence that such faulty regulations exist. Second, there is no evidence that even if they do exist, peer review would prevent or improve such regulations. I would be willing to bet that the most scientifically unsound regulations are either required by statute or have extremely broad political support. Peer review will do little to prevent regualtions in either of these categories.
Furthermore peer review is equally likely to prevent "good" regulations from coming out as "bad" ones. Disagreement in science is common and disagreement in economics is rampant (the guidance also covers economic analysis). Agencies are always likely to get a negative peer review for their analyses. These negative peer reviews will be used by courts to portray agencies as arbitrary and capricious and by politicians to say science does not support the agency's regulations. In fact, the peer reviews will just reflect healthy debate within academic communities.
The particulars of the OMB proposal exacerbate these fundamental problems. I won't go into detail here but if you are interested you can read my public comments on this site on the matter. In short the guidance will have social costs of more than hundreds of millions of dollars annually and may have no benefits. And if it is finalized, it is likely few people will notice.
Sounds obscure and not terribly consequential, huh? The opposite is true. In requiring peer review, the administration is adding a procedural step to the regualtory process that would add between 3 months and several years to the development of each regulation. This means that protections for the environment and public health would be significantly delayed by this action.
It is possible that such a delay would be worthwhile if there were a bunch of regulations that were supported by faulty analysis that peer review could correct. Unfortunately there are two problems with making such an assertion. First, the administration provided no evidence that such faulty regulations exist. Second, there is no evidence that even if they do exist, peer review would prevent or improve such regulations. I would be willing to bet that the most scientifically unsound regulations are either required by statute or have extremely broad political support. Peer review will do little to prevent regualtions in either of these categories.
Furthermore peer review is equally likely to prevent "good" regulations from coming out as "bad" ones. Disagreement in science is common and disagreement in economics is rampant (the guidance also covers economic analysis). Agencies are always likely to get a negative peer review for their analyses. These negative peer reviews will be used by courts to portray agencies as arbitrary and capricious and by politicians to say science does not support the agency's regulations. In fact, the peer reviews will just reflect healthy debate within academic communities.
The particulars of the OMB proposal exacerbate these fundamental problems. I won't go into detail here but if you are interested you can read my public comments on this site on the matter. In short the guidance will have social costs of more than hundreds of millions of dollars annually and may have no benefits. And if it is finalized, it is likely few people will notice.
